Geez, guys. ATF has a definition of “manufacturing”. An AR lower is already a firearm. Unless you make a Short Barrel Rifle out of it (or a pistol, if it has already been designated a rifle), you aren’t manufacturing. It has already been manufactured. Fitting wooden grips to a revolver (which I want to do) isn’t manufacturing in any sense of the word, dictionary, BATF, Texas law or otherwise. I get the desire to avoid liability but why the completely wussy approach to it? Some things are pretty clear but it seems we are yielding to armchair lawyers who are hyper-paranoid. Brooks? Are you there?
1 Like
yeah, that never adds to anyone’s credibility. 
4 Likes
BATFE also regulates gunsmithing, which is why even though that’s not manufacturing it’s not currently permitted at the space. Gunsmithing is even more vague in enforcement from the BATFE than the manufacturing. It doesn’t matter if you individually are not a business, DMS is. You are using DMS’ equipment therefore DMS is involved. It’s a terrible situation, but it’s the one we have to put up with.
There are those of us who actually have been and/or are going through the paperwork process and have dealt with the BATFE. Statements like this don’t help anyone and spread misinformation.
5 Likes
Many of my lawyer friends imply the same thing. 
@hon1nbo,
The catch you are missing is your link specifically reference an example of someone “engaged in the business” of firearms. This was the exact point our previous ruling explained. This is defined below and here is a link to the definition I’m using, https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=ad43d2989a1fb7cc38835e21801da221&term_occur=4&term_src=Title:27:Chapter:II:Subchapter:B:Part:478:Subpart:B:478.11
The problem with the most recent ATF meeting is that we have no specifics as to how this scenario has changed. We have no notes or recording of what was discussed at the meeting. And, the information given to the membership was a 95 page document of ATF ruling that also do not explain how our principal objective is livelihood and profit through the sale and distribution of firearms and ammunition manufactured at DMS.
DMS’s principal objective is to be organized and opperated for the tax exempt purposes of a 501c3 and none of our earning may enure to a private share holder or individual.
IRS definition: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501c3-organizations
As to what the tax exempt purpose, we serve to advance education and we are also charitable as we offer access to tools and training at a price point to the individual drastically below the cost.
IRS definition: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I want to be one. I just don’t understand at what point we enter into the business of firearms manufacture given the ATF’s definition?
With the AR15 build classes, the teacher isn’t being paid, the DMS isn’t charging class fees to the attendees, the DMS isn’t selling components or the firearm, the owner of the firearm is coming in with a legally purchased firearm and parts, and the individual is doing their own assembly with the guidance of an instructor. DMS is just providing space and tools as we would for any subject matter that fit our scope.
The same can be said for reloading, we are only providing space and tools at no additional cost. The components and labor are all provided by the individual that legally owns them.
I asked about some of this as well… The idea is the Members are doing the work. The members are part of the organization meaning the organization is doing the work using the organization tools and facilities for the members guns. Because Dallas Makerspace is a corporation, and the corporation is doing the work on the guns, it requires a 01 FFL.
2 Likes
Nick,
Here is the ruling that makes the problem: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/atf-ruling-2015-1-manufacturing-and-gunsmithing.pdf
To be clear, I’m not saying we’re a manufacturer, but gunsmithing still requires an FFL for an organization even if it’s not full manufacture and the BATFE has a very loose gunsmithing definition
It doesn’t matter if it’s not for profit (note it includes associations and societies so it precludes the for profit argument regardless of the BATFE’s existing disregard for non-profits), it’s the fact it’s equipment owned by DMS. DMS makes income from member dues, DMS owns the equipment, therefore in the eyes of the BATFE DMS needs a license. The BATFE doesn’t care about non-profit status for the purpose of licensing. The licensing is more about paperwork and auditing when it’s more than an individual.
I agree the unsettling thing here is that the BATFE makes a lot of interpretations and we don’t want to be the test case. But we have to be clear that it isn’t just manufacturing. The BATFE cares about the fact DMS is an organization with customers (I know, we should be considered members but they don’t have that view).
This ruling was originally intended to counteract manufacturing, but the way the ruling was written and interpreted was any case where an FFL would normally be required. This unfortunately includes gunsmithing.
Regards,
-Jim
I still think an AR-15 build class is feasible without an FFL because no guns will be built by the corporation. People will build their guns at home on their own time and using their own tools. How could this work? As I have explained elsewhere we can show how to do something and the stages needed without doing the work. We can use a real AR-15 taken apart no more than required to clean it, with nothing modified and put back together. This should not be considered gunsmithing nor manufacturing. We may and that is a big MAY be able to do this via live streaming or recorded video. What people do at their own home is not a concern. We can use other peoples videos and narrate them. These are some things we need to talk about at the next committee meeting and the meeting we will setup with the board. We need to start thinking about what wording we want changed and exceptions we want in the rules. AND some good explanations for why this is a good thing for DMS.
Jim,
I’ve read that ruling many times and it is specifically talking about subverting the manufacturing licensing, marking and record keeping required by the GCA. What is important to understand is that we are not doing this at DMS. We do not allow the manufacture of a firearm from material stock or finishing of an 80% lower on the tools provided by DMS.
Using the example of the AR15 class, we require members to purchase a firearm (the serialized lower) and all componenets needed to assemble it. From there we instruct the individual on how to assemble the AR15 and offer the use of tools for doing so. This is not the manufacture of a new fire, this is just the assembly of an already legally purchased and owned firearm under the ATF. We do not allow the assembly of an NFA item at DMS, because at that point the firearm would be considered by the ATF as remanufacture into a new firearm and thus would require the manufacturing license.
As for gunsmiths in that ruling they are specifically stating that a gunsmith would require a manufacturing licence to finish machining a firearm for a customer. Again this is not an activity we are pushing for at DMS.
Did you by chance not link the correct ruling?
RE: Manufacturing
“It was determined that a licensed dealer could assemble firearms from component parts on an individual basis, but could not engage in the business of assembling firearms from component parts in quantity lots for purposes of sale or distribution without a manufacturer’s license. Since then, ATF has similarly and consistently interpreted the term “manufacturer” under the GCA to mean any person who engages in the business of making firearms, by casting, assembly, alteration, or otherwise, for the purpose of sale or distribution”
A many members assembling guns in a class might be construed as “quantity lots” and “distribution” might be construed as taking them home.
In Revenue Ruling 55-342 (C.B. 1955-1, 562), ATF’s predecessor agency interpreted the meaning of the
terms “manufacturer” and “dealer” for the purpose of firearms licensing under the Federal Firearms Act,
the precursor statute to the GCA. It was determined that a licensed dealer could assemble firearms from
component parts on an individual basis, but could not engage in the business of assembling firearms from
component parts in quantity lots for purposes of sale or distribution without a manufacturer’s
license. Since then, ATF has similarly and consistently interpreted the term “manufacturer” under the
GCA to mean any person who engages in the business of making firearms, by casting, assembly,
alteration, or otherwise, for the purpose of sale or distribution. Such persons must have a manufacturer’s
license under the GCA, maintain permanent records of manufacture, and submit annual manufacturing
reports. The Revenue Ruling did not address whether dealer-gunsmiths who engage in the business of
repairing, modifying, embellishing, refurbishing, or installing parts in or on firearms for, or on behalf of
an importer or manufacturer are engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms requiring a
manufacturer’s license.
Here is a question.
Can we assemble a gun owned by Dallas Maskerspace for the purposes of education and not sale or distrubution? Eash student could assemble the same gun and take it apart.
Does it require a license to do this?
I don’t think I want to go there or propose it. But it is interesting to consider. What licenses do schools need?
Nick,
That ruling is about shared equipment still needing a license as the individual using the equipment does not change the fact of ownership.
Combine that ruling with the existing rules regarding gunsmithing to require an FFL and that’s how you get to where we are. As I said they made that determination originally because of people manufacturing, but once the shared equipment != individuals working ruling was made it applies in other areas. BATFE rulings can’t be taken piecemeal. When they say sharing equipment is the same as running a business, that applies to all cases of sharing equipment is the same as running a business, not just the specific scenario that prompted the ruling.
1 Like
So… If I loan a neighbor a screwdriver “we” are running a business? It seems to me we are using too broad of a definition of business. Business is “not” anything that involves money. There is a legal definition of business which was mentioned earlier in this thread - and then immediately ignored.
Russell Ward
2 Likes
@draco, if you read the ruling, it is not considered in distribution if you are assembling and already manufactured firearm. in the case of the AR class, the individual already own the firearm and are not selling it to each other or remanufacturing it into a new firearm. You can’t be called for distributing a firearm that has already been distributed effectively. This is explained in the gunsmith section of the ruling.
@hon1nbo please read the ruling you linked, it is explicit in its explanation of not sharing tool for the manufacture of a new firearms, not for the purposes of assembling and already manufactured firearm.
@Gimli your example is not really relevant, Engaged in business is described above as,
Sharing a tool freely is not engaged in business by this legal definition. That said, DMS does not in any primary manner profit off of firearms manufacture, sales, or distribution. As long as we do not sell firearms as DMS, or allow individuals to manufacture firearms at DMS. Every time I read these ruling I see that the grey area is the making of the part which is the “firearm”. which is not allowed at DMS. I really wish I could have been at the meeting with the ATF to press further into this exact issue.
1 Like
As
applied to a manufacturer of firearms, the term “engaged in the business” is defined by 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(21)(A) and 27 CFR 478.11, as a “person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing
firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit
through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured.”
@Gimli … I see your point … it may be our livelihood to be in the business of gun education but we are not in it for profit.
@Gimli @Nick
I’m not certain this has been challenged or indeed any of these things have been challenged in a court that could adjudicate it. It may very well prove true. However, we will need to go through the steps to protect ourselves in whatever we need to. I am actually for going out and being the one to go prove this. But many are not and don’t see why we should be the ones to take that stand. More to lose than gain, in their eyes. I don’t want the battle between members or the pushing at all. Some things you have to be gentle about and not push. This is one of them, I think.
The board does want to hear from us and is WILLING to consider all these options. But we better have something more convincing than what seems like a loophole in an ATF ruling. The reason I say loophole is because comparing this line of talk with an actual ATF agent telling the board something in person something completely different makes it sound like a loophole. We will have to get someone with the authority at least of the agent to come and talk with the board to counter what was said. No amount of arguing documents will do that. However, they are open to considering anything we bring before them in our meeting we will have.
I should point out that when I say “get someone with the authority” … I do not mean contact the government or ATF on behalf of DMS. What I mean is perhaps an attorney that specializes in such things and has dealt with non-profits/educational and the ATF. Someone that specializes in the laws and rulings. We would have to find them and get the board to contact them.
I think we should focus on the task at hand. Getting Hatcher’s Armory up and running with what we CAN do. It needs to be active and get more gun friendly people active in the space.
Nick,
The ruling was prompted regarding manufacture, and the conclusion is that shared equipment does not get around having an appropriate license.
It doesn’t matter what prompted the ruling, courts and enforcement are based on precedent and existing interpretations.
Because of this gunsmithing, which requires a license, is easily interpreted as falling under similar prohibitions on shared equipment as evading licensing requirements. You are reading this solely as to the scenario that prompted it, not to its wider impact.
We don’t want to be the test case for trying to change a broader interpretation.
1 Like
@hon1nbo please read the whole ruling rather than just adding context that isn’t there. The ruling says specifically manufacture for profit in nearly every sentence and way. Expanding it beyond that is just not in that ruling.
@Draco no one is yelling for change or being the test case in the later discussion. Rather, a statement was made that any assembly of a firearm at Dms would be considered manufacture of a firearm based on the atf ruling provided by hon1nbo due to sharing tools. The catch is the ruling selected doesn’t actually say that. As to finding an authority, but not being allowed to talk to the actual authority is a huge problem. I was not at the meeting, I don’t know what was discussed. And now I can’t contact the atf over the issue without possibly losing my membership. I get this, I don’t agree with it, but I do not wish to lose my membership in order to fix it. Because, I can do the things I want currently, I’m just sad that others can’t get the education I was able to get at Dms.
It is a mess at this point. @Draco obviously has the ear of someone on the BOD, probably @Kriskat30 and wants to help Hatcher’s. This is great, as my relationship with Kris is blown up at this point, due to her actions as well as my own. To make matters worse, our leadership had a private meeting with an ATF agent where they asked questions and the agent responded in a manner that made the leadership impose these very restrictive temporary rule.
After the rules came out, the membership was told that we would get a full report from the Agent in regards to what was discussed and how DMS is viewed by the ATF in the context of the meeting. This is where we are stuck. The report from the agent was junk, it was just a set of ATF rulings without any work to put them into context for DMS. For the membership it is like being pulled over by the cops and when you ask the officer what did I do wrong, they hand you all traffic laws and tell you to figure out what they pulled you over for. Then they release you with a warning and tell you to move on and don’t do it again.
We really need to know what was discussed at the meeting. We need to corroborate the statements of the agent with the actual ruling and laws imposed by the ATF in order to understand our position and what is and is not allowed. We don’t have that currently and are now talking about asking for rule changes when we don’t understand the basis for the rules. To make matters worse, this subject is a bit opaque. Many have made up their mind based on the opinions of a “authority figure” without checking or understanding the laws that give the “authority figure” power. The ATF only has the power to regulate companies in the business of firearms and also NFA items. They do not regulate personal firearms, personal gun smithing, and personal reloading. DMS support Personal Reloading and Personal gun smithing, but in no way the manufacture of firearms, because we don’t want to fix, or change firearms or ammunition for people. We want to give people the tools and training to reload their own ammunition, repair and maintain their own firearms, and modify and improve their own firearms. That is the catch in my eyes.
To make matter even worse, we don’t want to spend any money on getting proper legal help on this matter. We would rather the membership self learn, argue, and fight over the topic.
I editted this post to reflect the phrasing I meant, rather than the less exact phrasing I use that @tombakerftw pointed out.
1 Like
Wasn’t this a Fire Marshall issue rather than an ATF issue?
Don’t you understand why this kind of talk makes people nervous?
We’re a 24 hour volunteer-run facility that has everything one might need to “manufacture” a firearm.
But no, we don’t want to do that, we just want to teach people how it might be done, then trust them not to… C’mon, that does not pass the smell test.
It’s been established that no one here is able to effectively police that kind of activity therefore it is EXTREMELY important that we don’t give the impression that DMS is a place where you could do that. Why? Because technically there’s no way for us to stop it, and the ATF knows that.
To me this means that if we have a committee devoted to firearms then we have to be way more than careful.
The reason is that we are an edge case. The ATF appears to be scrambling to close what has the potential to be a giant loophole in their regulations because makerspaces are a relatively new thing that their rules had not considered before.
So yeah, naturally when a bunch of freedom-loving, technically minded folks get together in Texas to discuss putting together AR’s… (oh it’s just like gun legos, we’re not “manufacturing”! 
) The powers that be are gonna get nervous.
Your comments seem to imply that you feel the subject of an unfair witch hunt, but I don’t see it that way. Your body language and rhetoric do your cause no favors.
I’m glad you’ve chosen to step down and let someone with fewer chips on their shoulder take the helm.